The Meadows at Ashland
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
The Meadows at Ashland has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and overall poor performance. Ranked #170 out of 177 facilities in Nebraska, this places it in the bottom half of all nursing homes in the state, and it is the lowest-ranked facility in Saunders County. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of only 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 69%, which is significantly above the Nebraska average. While it is positive that there are no fines on record, the facility has been cited for serious issues, such as failing to implement fall prevention measures for multiple residents and not properly protecting residents from potential burns, which raises serious safety concerns.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Nebraska
- #170/177
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Nebraska facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Nebraska. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Nebraska average (2.9)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
23pts above Nebraska avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
21 points above Nebraska average of 48%
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.05(E) Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide the resident/resident representative education and receive informed consent for use ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10(C)Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prime a insulin pen ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)(vi)(3)(g) Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09 and 12-006.09(E)Based on record review and interviews; the facility failed to evalu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.10(D) Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to administer medications according to practitioner's orders or manufacturer's ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(F)(iii)
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to update the Com...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.006.09(I)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to imple...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18(B)
Based on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent cross contamination related to: 1. staff not wearing masks, 2. staff...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure baths were provided at least once weekly for 3 (Residents 7...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09B
Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Da...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09H(iv)
Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure routine bo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 1-009.04(i)
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews; the facility failed to ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0923
(Tag F0923)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.19B
Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04B(ii)(1)
Based on interview and record review that facility failed to ensure 2 staff members (Nurse Aide (NA)-O and NA-P) that had been employed longer than...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a hospice provider regarding the death for 1 (Resident 2) ou...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Licensure Reference: 175 NAC 12-006.09D7
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to respect a resident's right to personal privacy during medication administration for 1 (Resident #60) of 4 residents observed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow safe medication administration infection control practices during medication administration for 1 (Resident #60) of 4...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Nebraska facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is The Meadows At Ashland's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns The Meadows at Ashland an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Nebraska, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is The Meadows At Ashland Staffed?
CMS rates The Meadows at Ashland's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 23 percentage points above the Nebraska average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Meadows At Ashland?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at The Meadows at Ashland during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates The Meadows At Ashland?
The Meadows at Ashland is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by AVID HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 97 certified beds and approximately 81 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Ashland, Nebraska.
How Does The Meadows At Ashland Compare to Other Nebraska Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Nebraska, The Meadows at Ashland's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (69%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Meadows At Ashland?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is The Meadows At Ashland Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, The Meadows at Ashland has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Nebraska. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at The Meadows At Ashland Stick Around?
Staff turnover at The Meadows at Ashland is high. At 69%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Nebraska average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 57%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was The Meadows At Ashland Ever Fined?
The Meadows at Ashland has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is The Meadows At Ashland on Any Federal Watch List?
The Meadows at Ashland is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.